Epic confident in its lawsuit against Apple, asks courts to "restrain" Apple from adverse...

[onetheycallEric]

Big quote: "To be clear, Epic does not seek to force Apple to provide distribution and processing services for free, nor does Epic seek to enjoy Apple’s services without paying for them. What Epic wants is the freedom not to use Apple’s App Store or IAP, and instead to use and offer competing services," says Epic in its preliminary injunction filing from Friday.

In the latest development between Epic Games and Apple, Epic is once again petitioning the courts to allow Fortnite to return to the iOS App Store. Epic has previously sought a similar injunction, but so far, the courts have only elected to spare Epic's Unreal Engine from Apple's retaliation. Epic's Unreal Engine boasts a broad ecosystem, and there would be too much collateral damage should it be caught up in the legal battle playing out between Epic and Apple.

While the Unreal Engine will seemingly be shielded from the fallout, a certain amount of damage may have already been done. Epic Games has previously said developers were leaving the Unreal Engine platform due it is uncertain future within Apple's walled garden. This is also a point brought up in Epic's injunction filing, saying both Epic and its Unreal Engine stand to suffer irreparable harm without a legal intervention.

"Going forward, developers are questioning whether Unreal Engine would remain a viable platform on which to build their applications. There is no way to estimate the loss to Epic from an industry-wide shift away from Unreal Engine. Only a preliminary injunction can bring the level of certainty that developers need, and that Epic therefore needs to protect its business," says Epic.

Today we asked the Court to stop Apple’s retaliation against Epic for daring to challenge its unlawful restrictions while our antitrust case proceeds. This is a necessary step to free consumers and developers from Apple’s costly, anti-competitive control. https://t.co/r2XxhitjMp

— Epic Games Newsroom (@EpicNewsroom) September 5, 2020

Epic declares that it is aptly suited to challenge Apple in the markets of app distribution and in-app payment processing, and believes that its case is likely to succeed based on the merits that Apple's actions have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Though, Epic maintains it is not immune to damage, and seeks injunctive relief while confronting Apple.

"To enable Epic to carry out this challenge without suffering irreparable harm from Apple’s retaliation in the interim, Epic respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Apple from retaliating further and to undo Apple’s retaliation to date," says Epic.

However, Epic is also concerned about the long-term health of Fortnite in the interim, should its absence from the iOS App Store persist, hence why it's asking courts to reverse Apple's actions thus far.

"Daily active users on iOS have declined by over 60% since Fortnite’s removal from the App Store. And removal already has resulted in a loss of goodwill and irreparable damage to Epic’s reputation. The continued loss of Fortnite as a gathering place for users on all platforms will lead Epic’s customers to defect. Epic may never see these users again," explains Epic.

Epic's battle with Apple started back in August, when Epic rolled out its own in-app payment processing to circumvent both Apple and Google's 30% cut on in-game purchases. Apple responded in kind by booting Fortnite from the iOS App Store, and Google soon followed suit and kicked Fortnite from the Play Store. Epic has since been locked in legal battles with both companies, and it's far from over.

Meanwhile, the European Commission currently has an ongoing antitrust investigation involving Apple's App Store practices.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/86649-epic-confident-lawsuit-against-apple-asks-courts-restrain.html

 

[Uncle Al]

LOL ..... oh my, this will certainly be clash of the titans, even though Epic is more of a David than a Goliath ...

 

[tacobravo]

If Epic doesn't want to play by Apple's rules, then they don't have to be in their app store.

 

[kiwigraeme]

If Epic doesn't want to play by Apple's rules, then they don't have to be in their app store.

Apple will get theirs eventually - Pay Apple dues - spend a lot of money - get it approved - 3 months later Apple release a similar app - yours booted off - no answers given . Yeah the E.U etc will get them eventually. You are going to see more cheap Apple phones in the future - they need the 30% take .

Always amazes me on tech sites - going on about their rights to privacy - and they buy apples - they can't even use a an SD card - or copy and paste - maybe less relevant now - but I want to control my device and media - Plus I never paid a stupid amount just for a tool that can do the same for $200-$300

 

[pinscher]

If Epic doesn't want to play by Apple's rules, then they don't have to be in their app store.

You clearly don't know what a legal battle is or a monopoly.

 

[jpuroila]

If Epic doesn't want to play by Apple's rules, then they don't have to be in their app store.

If Apple doesn't want to play by the FTC rules, then they don't have to be in the US.

 

[cliffordcooley]

If Apple doesn't want to play by the FTC rules

Forgive my ignorance, which rules are in question for being broken?

 

[tellmewhy]

The killer applications don’t have that name for nothing.


If Microsoft asks the Adobe for example to distribute their apps only throw the ms store with 30% cut Adobe will go to Linux and after a while the users will follow because you as an end user what you interest at the end is to process your selfies with your precious self in them, you are not interest who's code copies the files and in which file system. Same is here with the Epic, at the end if they “lose” the case they will offer a distribution of Linux (exactly that wanted to do and Samsung to their phones with Tizen but at the end they preferred the Android) to run on iPhones hardware with open environment and 5% fee for Epic store apps. So the owners of iPhones will go to the nerds in their neighborhood they gill give them 20$ and ask them to install Epic Linux on their iPhones so they can play Fortnite and other games with UE. So Apple will be less healthy than it was at 90s if “wins” that case. ANY hardware is ALWAYS in the ownership of the buyer and he can do what ever he wants with it, even destroy it. For example the Intel dosn't have the right to go to court and ask the Microsoft to stop programming compilers for their processors.

 

[dnous]

There is nothing stopping Epic from abiding by rules for the App Store and allow their ios customers to play the latest season of Fortnite while continuing their legal battle against Apple. The loss in revenue and the decline in active users on ios is completely caused by Epic themselves. Even though they are trying their best to make it look like Apple is to blame.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Apple is operating in an under regulated market but following existing rules in my opinion.
Epic on the other hand, has violated its contractual obligations towards apple because it thinks the 30% fee for Apple is too much.
In my interpretation it is Epic that violated terms and not the other way around.
Regulation on that market is a different story and Congress is already focusing on it. It will come sooner or later.
Epic has a record of crying about such fees (case with Steam and now the App Store) while they are making billions with a silly shooter game. Greed is a b*tch, right? (obviously true for Apple as well)
Until regulation arrives, Epic needs a kick in the butt to follow the current rules in my honest opinion.

 

[Raph1]

Epic once again pretending to be righteous when in fact its just trying to get profit at the expense of someone else

 

[cliffordcooley]

Epic once again pretending to be righteous when in fact its just trying to get profit at the expense of someone else

I'm sorry but showcasing a digital product is not an expense. Especially one that would worth 30% of what Epic brings to the table.

 

[Peter Farkas]

I'm sorry but showcasing a digital product is not an expense. Especially one that would worth 30% of what Epic brings to the table.

I agree that 30% is a lot, but don't forget it's not just a showcase. Apple develops the OS and some of the hardware on which those games are running that are showcased in the App Store.
Also, practically a PaaS if you think about it, including SDKs, SDLC services. Apple built up its own sales channel to reach 700M+ consumers directly over long years. I guess EPIC can't tell the same and they didn't have to work on any of that, just develop a game and then cash out.

 

[cliffordcooley]

You are essentially treating iOS and the hardware for which it is installed as a service. All because they make it mandatory to use the App Store. Yeah that is just wrong because iOS and hardware was flat out paid for. The App Store is making developers pay Apple/Google for the developers hard work. It is theft and needs to stop. And before anyone starts talking about security. If that was a factor there would be far less malware in the store. The only time they do anything about malware is when they are called out on it.

 

[Peter Farkas]

You are essentially treating iOS and the hardware for which it is installed as a service. All because they make it mandatory to use the App Store. Yeah that is just wrong because iOS and hardware was flat out paid for. The App Store is making developers pay Apple/Google for the developers hard work. It is theft and needs to stop. And before anyone starts talking about security. If that was a factor there would be far less malware in the store. The only time they do anything about malware is when they are called out on it.

I hear you. But it is really not just a showcase. Epic would never be able to reach 700 million consumers on its own. It also cost Apple years and billions to develop their products and grow their customer base up to where it is today.
How would EPIC and similar companies reach so many consumers with their products without Apple/Google?
They have made billions through the App Store already. And suddenly when that 30% starts meaning hundreds of millions they start protesting. I never saw them crying about the 30% when they weren't making this much through Apple.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Many people find it acceptable to be screwed over. And by acceptable. I mean it would cost them more to fight it out in court. That doesn't make it right.

Ohh and by the way Apples R&D was recovered from the cost of their iOS and hardware. I thought I made my opinion on that point clear above.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Many people find it acceptable to be screwed over. And by acceptable. I mean it would cost them more to fight it out in court. That doesn't make it right.

Ohh and by the way Apples R&D was recovered from the cost of their iOS and hardware. I thought I made my opinion on that point clear above.

so what about the customer base? how would these companies reach 700 million customers? or is that supposed to be free?

 

[Xallisto]

If Epic doesn't want to play by Apple's rules, then they don't have to be in their app store.

Dude, that is literally the whole point of their case. They don't want to be on Apples store and don't wan't to be subject to the levies and charges associated with it.

 

[Raph1]

I'm sorry but showcasing a digital product is not an expense. Especially one that would worth 30% of what Epic brings to the table.

im sorry but it still looks like epic trying to increase its profits, they try and get rid of apples 30% cut but only offer people 20% of that for direct payment, odd that isnt it.....

 

[cliffordcooley]

odd that isnt it.....

Not if you think about it. Put yourself in Epic's shoes. Now put yourself in Apple's shoes. Think about it for a minute. When do you feel the greediest?